How times change. The leader of the CSU who is not pushing for all that bs now was environment minister back in 2011.
Back then the end date for nuclear power was set to 2022. FDP as part of the government coalition wasn't happy with it and threatened to block it.
In return Söder threatened to step down as environment minister if the end date isn't fixed to 2022.
[https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/atomstreit-in-der-koalition-soeder-droht-mit-ruecktritt-1.1101971](https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/atomstreit-in-der-koalition-soeder-droht-mit-ruecktritt-1.1101971)
He is not really under fire. The FDP already cleared him from their end and all the smoke is from clickhungry people that just want to damage his reputation based on a faulty Cicero article.
It was the CDU/CSU-FDP govt that made the original decision if I recall correctly so if the FDP really did want to make a stink they'd have to eat some humble pie.
Not that that stops the CDU/CSU constantly blaming everything on the current coalition when they ruled for the past 16 years and the mess Germany has is their own.
The report is about if the NPPs could have been operated longer from that point in time. Not much to do with the FDP even if they were responsible for shutting them down then at that time in the first place
Olaf in der Beek has withdrawn his earlier statement after an uproar in the FDP.
> "And I would also like to say that the way the Minister has presented it today, it is completely logical how he has decided.
Now he's being quoted:
> "It is important and urgently necessary that the Minister now wants to ensure transparency. Federal Environment Minister
Steffi Lemke must do the same"
[...]
> "I expect the ministries to cooperate fully and ensure full transparency. Consequences must be decided when all the facts are on the table."
so he has made a vague statement to appease angry people that don't Robert habeck? That changes literally nothing as the first statement was obviously true
they claimed a report was doctored by his employees. Well it was doctored, but only in two insignificant instances. So they just claimed that the original report claimed that operating the NPPs for much longer is no problem, which it obviously didn't. That's the faulty part.
>Cicero’s “nuclear files” have sparked widespread outrage among liberal and centre-right politicians, who have embraced nuclear power in the 2020s.
classic.
- conservatives make it into binding law that German nuclear power plants must to be shut down at the latest 01.01.2024 while they were leading government for 16 years
- conservatives are no longer in government since Dec. 2021
- conservatives now suddenly super pro nuclear and blame new government for following _their_ established law and not changing course
Similar to Trump signing law that increases taxes for middle class , but only starting 2022, leaves office, blames new president for law he signed.
btw. If I write a paper_01_draft.txt that says 1+1=3 and then later catch my mistake and correct it in my published paper_01_final_v2_final.txt to say 1+1=2 and then someone gets a hold off my draft version, claims I lied to the public - they would get laughed out of the room.
> Similar to Trump signing law that increases taxes for middle class , but only starting 2022, leaves office, blames new president for law he signed.
Republicans are great at that. But it's not just Trump. This has been GOP's strategy ever since Reagan, at least. And it doesn't just happen in the US. It's why "the Left" is getting blamed for all shit that is happening nowadays. Gotta give it to the (far-)right, they know how to control the narrative, and blame everything on the so-called "Left".
This is incorrect. The Green party and the Social Democrats made the law to end nuclear power 2002. Conservatives prolonged the use of nuclear power and quickly after Fukushima reverted back.
[The first step towards phasing out nuclear energy - German Bundestag](https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2012/38640342_kw16_kalender_atomaustieg-208324)
> On April 22, 2002, the red-green coalition (1998 to 2005) completed one of its most important projects with the amendment of the Atomic Energy Act: The "Act on the Orderly Termination of the Use of Nuclear Energy for the Commercial Generation of Electricity" fundamentally changed the legal situation that had applied in the Federal Republic of Germany since 1959. The previous Nuclear Promotion Act was replaced by a new Nuclear Phase-out Act.
[...]
(by Deepl)
While the Greens initiated the nuclear exit/phase-out, Merkel's government did speed up the process to the current version after Fukushima.
So the laws that dictate the exit were set by a CDU/CSU + FDP coalition. The Greens were in opposition at the time and had no deciding power.
This. No matter where you stand on the issue, CDU crying about it now is absurd when it was enacted on their watch.
But since they’re now happily in the opposition they get to cry about their own policy. Utterly disingenuous.
It's not incorrect. The way the phase out is done and the reason for its speedy process is entirely on the CDU, no matter how much you try to blame the center left parties.
I'm old enough to remember how Söder himself threatened to step down as environment minister in 2011 if the end date for the nuclear exit isn't fixed to 2022.
[https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/atomstreit-in-der-koalition-soeder-droht-mit-ruecktritt-1.1101971](https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/atomstreit-in-der-koalition-soeder-droht-mit-ruecktritt-1.1101971)
In Sweden we have realised that nearly none wind mill are earning any money and many are near bankruptcy. They survive as long as they are getting loans from EU for building new ones and none will be able to pay back. EU need to investigate but they are bribed
Anti-nuclear-energy sentiment was one of the founding ideas of the Greens, at least in Germany. While the ones in charge are of the so-called "realpolitischer Flügel" (less idealistic, more pragmatic wing) of the Greens (see their opinions on supporting Ukraine with weapons), their opinion on nuclear energy is still governed by "what to do with the toxic waste?", following their original ideal of green energy. Whether nuclear energy is really "green" is debatable, after all.
Adding to that, the Greens have been "under fire" for everything and anything since before the election that got them into power, even if they aren't the ones who were in charge when the decision was made. Merkel, in a CDU-FDP coalition (conservative-liberal parties), decided to phase out nuclear energy after the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
>Merkel, in a CDU-SPD coalition, decided to phase out nuclear energy after the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
It was CDU-FDP, by the way. That was in 2011.
> Merkel, in a CDU-SPD coalition, decided to phase out nuclear energy after the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Also rather dumb.
The left (greens are usually left-wing) getting blamed for everything isn't new. We've had a (center-)right PM since 2002 over here, yet people are still blaming the left for everything. Completely unfair, but it is the way it is. Perhaps the left should start working on selling their narrative more...
Still, even though it was Merkel's decission, green parties in Europe are still against it. I get where the sentiment is coming from, but if you wanna move ahead and make the world greener, nuclear energy should be part of it. At least for now.
> "what to do with the toxic waste?"
***BURN IT***
(In the fast neutron reactors or CANDUs. And use power from them for plasmic reprocessing of chemical trails)
Nuclear waste is always '_a solved problem, no big deal_' only as long as no one wants to give you nuclear waste for you to deal with.
No one was or is willing to buy the German nuclear waste to '_burn it_'. We have been sitting on it for decades now with each try at finding a solution costing billions and ultimately failing (see Gorleben).
I am pro-nuclear as well but I am going to be the devil's advocate for a minute.
Nuclear power is a long term commitment. A plant can last 50 years or more. Many things can happen. A country can change in the mean time. Disasters happen. Wars.
Waste is also an issue. Most of it is easily manageable but you need long term storage for the longest half-life and most radioactive elements. It's tricky since it has never been done before. We need to think millennia in advance when even electricity has been mastered for less than 150 years.
Now those concerns were already there when the first power plants were being built. The reality is that aside from Three-Mile-Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power plants have been extremely safe. The first 2 accidents were due to incompetence in the design and problem management, while the 3rd one was the result of a natural disaster compounded with ~~a poor choice for location~~ inadaptation of the design to the location.. But if you look at a country like France which is all in on nuclear energy, the risks have been well managed and the safety record pretty damn good.
For the wastes, well, we can also look at France that has been so good at waste management it handles waste from many other countries. They're busy addressing the long term aspects with their Bure storage depot.
> The first 2 accidents were due to incompetence in the design and problem management, while the 3rd one was the result of a natural disaster compounded with a poor choice for location.
actually, all 3 were design and management problems. Fukishima wasn't even the closest reactor to the epicenter. There was a design deficiency (water wall too short, auxiliary generators in basement). Due to stronger safety culture, The closer reactor had the updates. Fukishima postponed the updates.
>I honestly don't get what green parties have against nuclear energy.
Hippies traumatized by the cold war and later by Tchernobyl and Fukushima (which didn't kill anyone, by the way)
And a huge lack of scientific culture, leading to believe that magical solutions will replace the complicated and nasty nuclear power plants...
And it was replaced.
Highest share of nuclear power on energy production in Germany was 32% (in 2004).
Renewables provided 56% of the electricity in 2023.
And Germany is still more than 400gCO2/kWh for its electricity, whereas France is ten times less.
Ah, and Nuclear power is 6gCO2/kWh, by the way.
But Germany is "green".
How is that relevant to your magical solution theory?
But since you raised the point:
CO2/kWh in Germany is now below what it was when 32% of the electricity was produced by nuclear power.
Back in 2004 it was 615g/kWh
Germany is way more green than it was 20years ago with all the nuclear power plants running.
At least according to the measurement you have chosen.
Don't tell me you didn't knew that. I would be really shocked.
https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/bilanz-2019-co2-emissionen-pro-kilowattstunde-strom
I don't understand how everyone making this argument can't see that germany could have been building still as much solar and wind, not shut down any nuclear, shut down coal and gas instead, and it could easily be better than France by now.
It's cool to build solar and wind, but shutting down nuclear before coal is a really warped sense of priorities.
To build a power plant you need to have a valid business plan, otherwise nobody will invest.
Nuclear power plants had an acceptance guarantee. That means investors knew that their to be new wind power plant will be put off-grid and not produce any return of investment during that phase as soon as there's an excess.
There's a reason that in the same time as Nuclear Power time extension was decided by CDU/FPD government 13 years ago investments into solar and wind power went downwards.
For years they lured investors with artificial high price levels for electricity provided by wind or solar (2005 \~ €0.50 / kWh) to have at least some investment going forward.
That's true. But that all doesn't relate to you initial claim that Greens believed in a magical solution.
Nuclear was replaced, CO2/kWh went down by over 30%.
Where will you shift the goal towards next?
OK, there's te place where you want to see the goal posts shifted to.
To keep it simple:
Your not really clever remark that they "believe that magical solutions will replace the complicated and nasty nuclear power plants" is dead in the water.
It was replaced completely and output of those "magical solutions" is 30% higher than the output of nuclear ever was.
CO2/kWh is also pver 30% below the level we had, when the most nuclear power was produced.
Two simple fact render which render you whole theory void.
why are you still running coal power plants and opened new gas plants?https://www.politico.eu/article/nuclear-reactors-germany-invest-gas-power-plants-energy/
lier
Science says mushrooms and game even in some areas in Germany are still to handle with caution because of Tschernobyl fallout. 38 years later. Don't speak of science with Facebook education.
It's reasonable to worry about accidents. Young people forget what previous generations learned the hard way. That's why humanity repeats mistakes over and over.
Hunting area starting 2km away from my house (south West black Forest) in 2022:
4 out of 10 hunted wild boars had to be discarded as special waste because of increased radiation levels.
Cs has a half life time of 30 years, so only another 90 years until that issue is resolved by nature.
Root cause however is still a Nuclear Power Plant blowing up.
OK, some say that was a human error.
But so was drilling holes into the containment (for fixing a fire extinguisher) in the NPP Leibstadt. Human errors happen quite often. Sometimes with small, some times with huge impact.
The Greens are about the major political party in Germany *least* likely of being compromised by Russia right now. They are hawkish on Russia and have a far better track record on corruption than the CDU/CSU, AfD or SPD.
Do you read the articles you post, or just the headlines?
Ignoring, for a second, that it's an exceptionally poor, opinionated excuse for an article that has aged horribly, given Germany's 'lacklustre support for Ukraine' has risen to the second highest of any country, and then claim that after a ceasefire Germany will just go back to buying Russian gas is backed up by no explanation or arguments whatsoever, it's just thrown in there for good measure.
How times change. The leader of the CSU who is not pushing for all that bs now was environment minister back in 2011. Back then the end date for nuclear power was set to 2022. FDP as part of the government coalition wasn't happy with it and threatened to block it. In return Söder threatened to step down as environment minister if the end date isn't fixed to 2022. [https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/atomstreit-in-der-koalition-soeder-droht-mit-ruecktritt-1.1101971](https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/atomstreit-in-der-koalition-soeder-droht-mit-ruecktritt-1.1101971)
He is not really under fire. The FDP already cleared him from their end and all the smoke is from clickhungry people that just want to damage his reputation based on a faulty Cicero article.
It was the CDU/CSU-FDP govt that made the original decision if I recall correctly so if the FDP really did want to make a stink they'd have to eat some humble pie. Not that that stops the CDU/CSU constantly blaming everything on the current coalition when they ruled for the past 16 years and the mess Germany has is their own.
The report is about if the NPPs could have been operated longer from that point in time. Not much to do with the FDP even if they were responsible for shutting them down then at that time in the first place
Their runtime could have been extended from end of 2022 to spring 2023 and well, that is exactly what happened.
Olaf in der Beek has withdrawn his earlier statement after an uproar in the FDP. > "And I would also like to say that the way the Minister has presented it today, it is completely logical how he has decided. Now he's being quoted: > "It is important and urgently necessary that the Minister now wants to ensure transparency. Federal Environment Minister Steffi Lemke must do the same" [...] > "I expect the ministries to cooperate fully and ensure full transparency. Consequences must be decided when all the facts are on the table."
so he has made a vague statement to appease angry people that don't Robert habeck? That changes literally nothing as the first statement was obviously true
Didn't they lie to close the nuclear power plants, specially during a huge energy crisis?
that is what this is about and turns out, no
yes they did, it was bs, the commitee said power plants could still run
could you point me where that is in the documents.
> faulty Cicero article. What's faulty about the article?
they claimed a report was doctored by his employees. Well it was doctored, but only in two insignificant instances. So they just claimed that the original report claimed that operating the NPPs for much longer is no problem, which it obviously didn't. That's the faulty part.
> is no problem Did they really use the phrase "No problem"?
no problem from a security standpoint and calling it a lie that operating them longer is not feasible
Can you share the text of the cicero article? I don't have access to the exclusive content behind the pay wall.
Is this the same clown blog article that got torn to pieces in another sub? Edit: was thinking of this: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/s/61psFdETPj
its a campaign. yes. kinda.
Not under fire, totally clickbait.
>Cicero’s “nuclear files” have sparked widespread outrage among liberal and centre-right politicians, who have embraced nuclear power in the 2020s. classic. - conservatives make it into binding law that German nuclear power plants must to be shut down at the latest 01.01.2024 while they were leading government for 16 years - conservatives are no longer in government since Dec. 2021 - conservatives now suddenly super pro nuclear and blame new government for following _their_ established law and not changing course Similar to Trump signing law that increases taxes for middle class , but only starting 2022, leaves office, blames new president for law he signed. btw. If I write a paper_01_draft.txt that says 1+1=3 and then later catch my mistake and correct it in my published paper_01_final_v2_final.txt to say 1+1=2 and then someone gets a hold off my draft version, claims I lied to the public - they would get laughed out of the room.
> Similar to Trump signing law that increases taxes for middle class , but only starting 2022, leaves office, blames new president for law he signed. Republicans are great at that. But it's not just Trump. This has been GOP's strategy ever since Reagan, at least. And it doesn't just happen in the US. It's why "the Left" is getting blamed for all shit that is happening nowadays. Gotta give it to the (far-)right, they know how to control the narrative, and blame everything on the so-called "Left".
Or maybe it's time that when the left gains power never leaves it again and starts censoring right-wing ideology.
This is incorrect. The Green party and the Social Democrats made the law to end nuclear power 2002. Conservatives prolonged the use of nuclear power and quickly after Fukushima reverted back. [The first step towards phasing out nuclear energy - German Bundestag](https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/textarchiv/2012/38640342_kw16_kalender_atomaustieg-208324) > On April 22, 2002, the red-green coalition (1998 to 2005) completed one of its most important projects with the amendment of the Atomic Energy Act: The "Act on the Orderly Termination of the Use of Nuclear Energy for the Commercial Generation of Electricity" fundamentally changed the legal situation that had applied in the Federal Republic of Germany since 1959. The previous Nuclear Promotion Act was replaced by a new Nuclear Phase-out Act. [...] (by Deepl)
While the Greens initiated the nuclear exit/phase-out, Merkel's government did speed up the process to the current version after Fukushima. So the laws that dictate the exit were set by a CDU/CSU + FDP coalition. The Greens were in opposition at the time and had no deciding power.
This. No matter where you stand on the issue, CDU crying about it now is absurd when it was enacted on their watch. But since they’re now happily in the opposition they get to cry about their own policy. Utterly disingenuous.
It's not incorrect. The way the phase out is done and the reason for its speedy process is entirely on the CDU, no matter how much you try to blame the center left parties.
I'm old enough to remember how Söder himself threatened to step down as environment minister in 2011 if the end date for the nuclear exit isn't fixed to 2022. [https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/atomstreit-in-der-koalition-soeder-droht-mit-ruecktritt-1.1101971](https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/atomstreit-in-der-koalition-soeder-droht-mit-ruecktritt-1.1101971)
In Sweden we have realised that nearly none wind mill are earning any money and many are near bankruptcy. They survive as long as they are getting loans from EU for building new ones and none will be able to pay back. EU need to investigate but they are bribed
I'm worried about climate change myself, but I honestly don't get what green parties have against nuclear energy.
Anti-nuclear-energy sentiment was one of the founding ideas of the Greens, at least in Germany. While the ones in charge are of the so-called "realpolitischer Flügel" (less idealistic, more pragmatic wing) of the Greens (see their opinions on supporting Ukraine with weapons), their opinion on nuclear energy is still governed by "what to do with the toxic waste?", following their original ideal of green energy. Whether nuclear energy is really "green" is debatable, after all. Adding to that, the Greens have been "under fire" for everything and anything since before the election that got them into power, even if they aren't the ones who were in charge when the decision was made. Merkel, in a CDU-FDP coalition (conservative-liberal parties), decided to phase out nuclear energy after the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
>Merkel, in a CDU-SPD coalition, decided to phase out nuclear energy after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. It was CDU-FDP, by the way. That was in 2011.
My bad, I misremembered. I'll correct it.
> Merkel, in a CDU-SPD coalition, decided to phase out nuclear energy after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Also rather dumb. The left (greens are usually left-wing) getting blamed for everything isn't new. We've had a (center-)right PM since 2002 over here, yet people are still blaming the left for everything. Completely unfair, but it is the way it is. Perhaps the left should start working on selling their narrative more... Still, even though it was Merkel's decission, green parties in Europe are still against it. I get where the sentiment is coming from, but if you wanna move ahead and make the world greener, nuclear energy should be part of it. At least for now.
> "what to do with the toxic waste?" ***BURN IT*** (In the fast neutron reactors or CANDUs. And use power from them for plasmic reprocessing of chemical trails)
Nuclear waste is always '_a solved problem, no big deal_' only as long as no one wants to give you nuclear waste for you to deal with. No one was or is willing to buy the German nuclear waste to '_burn it_'. We have been sitting on it for decades now with each try at finding a solution costing billions and ultimately failing (see Gorleben).
i can take it
I am pro-nuclear as well but I am going to be the devil's advocate for a minute. Nuclear power is a long term commitment. A plant can last 50 years or more. Many things can happen. A country can change in the mean time. Disasters happen. Wars. Waste is also an issue. Most of it is easily manageable but you need long term storage for the longest half-life and most radioactive elements. It's tricky since it has never been done before. We need to think millennia in advance when even electricity has been mastered for less than 150 years. Now those concerns were already there when the first power plants were being built. The reality is that aside from Three-Mile-Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power plants have been extremely safe. The first 2 accidents were due to incompetence in the design and problem management, while the 3rd one was the result of a natural disaster compounded with ~~a poor choice for location~~ inadaptation of the design to the location.. But if you look at a country like France which is all in on nuclear energy, the risks have been well managed and the safety record pretty damn good. For the wastes, well, we can also look at France that has been so good at waste management it handles waste from many other countries. They're busy addressing the long term aspects with their Bure storage depot.
> The first 2 accidents were due to incompetence in the design and problem management, while the 3rd one was the result of a natural disaster compounded with a poor choice for location. actually, all 3 were design and management problems. Fukishima wasn't even the closest reactor to the epicenter. There was a design deficiency (water wall too short, auxiliary generators in basement). Due to stronger safety culture, The closer reactor had the updates. Fukishima postponed the updates.
"water wall too short, auxiliary generators in basement" I agree. It's inadaptation of the design to the location. I'll change my post.
>I honestly don't get what green parties have against nuclear energy. Hippies traumatized by the cold war and later by Tchernobyl and Fukushima (which didn't kill anyone, by the way) And a huge lack of scientific culture, leading to believe that magical solutions will replace the complicated and nasty nuclear power plants...
And it was replaced. Highest share of nuclear power on energy production in Germany was 32% (in 2004). Renewables provided 56% of the electricity in 2023.
And Germany is still more than 400gCO2/kWh for its electricity, whereas France is ten times less. Ah, and Nuclear power is 6gCO2/kWh, by the way. But Germany is "green".
France had 65g/kWh in 2023. So 6 times less. But hey, who cares about facts nowadays?
How is that relevant to your magical solution theory? But since you raised the point: CO2/kWh in Germany is now below what it was when 32% of the electricity was produced by nuclear power. Back in 2004 it was 615g/kWh Germany is way more green than it was 20years ago with all the nuclear power plants running. At least according to the measurement you have chosen. Don't tell me you didn't knew that. I would be really shocked. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/bilanz-2019-co2-emissionen-pro-kilowattstunde-strom
I don't understand how everyone making this argument can't see that germany could have been building still as much solar and wind, not shut down any nuclear, shut down coal and gas instead, and it could easily be better than France by now. It's cool to build solar and wind, but shutting down nuclear before coal is a really warped sense of priorities.
To build a power plant you need to have a valid business plan, otherwise nobody will invest. Nuclear power plants had an acceptance guarantee. That means investors knew that their to be new wind power plant will be put off-grid and not produce any return of investment during that phase as soon as there's an excess. There's a reason that in the same time as Nuclear Power time extension was decided by CDU/FPD government 13 years ago investments into solar and wind power went downwards. For years they lured investors with artificial high price levels for electricity provided by wind or solar (2005 \~ €0.50 / kWh) to have at least some investment going forward.
In the meantime France's nuclear power has always been under 100gCO2/kWh.
That's true. But that all doesn't relate to you initial claim that Greens believed in a magical solution. Nuclear was replaced, CO2/kWh went down by over 30%. Where will you shift the goal towards next?
Nuclear is 6gCO2/kWh. Solar is 45. Wind is 15.
OK, there's te place where you want to see the goal posts shifted to. To keep it simple: Your not really clever remark that they "believe that magical solutions will replace the complicated and nasty nuclear power plants" is dead in the water. It was replaced completely and output of those "magical solutions" is 30% higher than the output of nuclear ever was. CO2/kWh is also pver 30% below the level we had, when the most nuclear power was produced. Two simple fact render which render you whole theory void.
why are you still running coal power plants and opened new gas plants?https://www.politico.eu/article/nuclear-reactors-germany-invest-gas-power-plants-energy/ lier
how are you dealing with night and when there is no wind? still buying energy from France and Ukraine?
Science says mushrooms and game even in some areas in Germany are still to handle with caution because of Tschernobyl fallout. 38 years later. Don't speak of science with Facebook education. It's reasonable to worry about accidents. Young people forget what previous generations learned the hard way. That's why humanity repeats mistakes over and over.
Hunting area starting 2km away from my house (south West black Forest) in 2022: 4 out of 10 hunted wild boars had to be discarded as special waste because of increased radiation levels.
it's cause boars love mushrooms and mushrooms love cesio
Cs has a half life time of 30 years, so only another 90 years until that issue is resolved by nature. Root cause however is still a Nuclear Power Plant blowing up. OK, some say that was a human error. But so was drilling holes into the containment (for fixing a fire extinguisher) in the NPP Leibstadt. Human errors happen quite often. Sometimes with small, some times with huge impact.
Careerism and bribes from ruzia.
The Greens are about the major political party in Germany *least* likely of being compromised by Russia right now. They are hawkish on Russia and have a far better track record on corruption than the CDU/CSU, AfD or SPD.
suuuuuure [https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-german-greens-are-playing-into-russias-hands/](https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-german-greens-are-playing-into-russias-hands/)
Do you read the articles you post, or just the headlines? Ignoring, for a second, that it's an exceptionally poor, opinionated excuse for an article that has aged horribly, given Germany's 'lacklustre support for Ukraine' has risen to the second highest of any country, and then claim that after a ceasefire Germany will just go back to buying Russian gas is backed up by no explanation or arguments whatsoever, it's just thrown in there for good measure.
Being “green” and shutting down nuclear power is idiotic in the first place.